I could be completely off but negative shareholders equity indicates zero earnings from the business and no stock value for original offerings. While it is indicative to company in huge distress, it is also a balance sheet of organization which is under huge market stress and sure should be consider a risk for a conservative investor.I don't understand either. How can the company have negative equity (almost half a billion!) without authorities appointing a BK lawyer to protect the claims of employees, suppliers etc.? In my world, once the equity is gone you owe more than you have and thus blew it and a lawyer takes control of your assets to distribute creditors' claims lawfully. Of course in this distribution shareholders' always gets nothing except the freedom to not have to pay the company's liabilities. Let's see how it trades. Stocks trading on U.S. exchanges do not seem very value focused anyway. Book value per share -3 USD..
I could be completely off but negative shareholders equity indicates zero earnings from the business and no stock value for original offerings. While it is indicative to company in huge distress, it is also a balance sheet of organization which is under huge market stress and sure should be consider a risk for a conservative investor.
I just want to point out that CSUN as you know have negative equity, and with next three quarters more companies may have the same condition. I am seeing a lot of disapproval for LDK, I am curious if the group will feel the same when more favorite corporations will join this condition.
Exactly, that's why everyone are looking at who's bleeding least (SOL and CSIQ) and who has most left to bleed (TSL and JASO).Sure but for the next three quarters we will see further erosion of equity, simply due to losses?
Any concern on this, or does it matter?
Forum Software: Burning Board®, developed by WoltLab® GmbH
